Sunday Downtime - All Evolve Media Sites are being migrated to a new data center Sunday Dec 11, 2016. The migration will occur during an 8 AM to 2 PM (Pacific Time) maintenance window. We will have up to 1 hour of downtime for any of our sites.

By The NumbersHockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Malkin also has better scoring finishes than Crosby (3 top 2 finishes for Malkin compared to Crosby who was top 2 twice).

While not disagreeing with the idea that Geno's the man, you can't use that to compare them as players.

In 2011 Crosby undoubtedly gets the Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross, maybe the Rocket. He'd have to cool off to 35 points in 41 games not to, and I can't see him doing that. In the same season, Malkin wasn't even PPG before his injury.

People also forget that Crosby had a mediocre beginning to that season. His tear starting in November through December was ridiculous, but for the beginning of that season it was the Brent Johnson show. People on the Penguins board were panicking at the lack of scoring. In October he had 15 points in 12 games. In the remaining 29 he had 51, a 1.79 PPG. After one scoreless game against the Islanders (a tight-checking game), he gets concussed in the first period of the Winter Classic, and scores 1 point in the next two games.

I think his dominance over the league (which, by the way, he picked up on as soon as he came back) would have continued over much of the rest of the season. I say he ends up with around 120 points on the season with around 55 goals.

Obviously these are hypotheticals. My point is that if this thread intends to diminish Crosby's half season, it fails to take a lot into account (including different scoring levels, his lead over his competition, and his mediocre start.

While not disagreeing with the idea that Geno's the man, you can't use that to compare them as players.

In 2011 Crosby undoubtedly gets the Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross, maybe the Rocket. He'd have to cool off to 35 points in 41 games not to, and I can't see him doing that. In the same season, Malkin wasn't even PPG before his injury.

People also forget that Crosby had a mediocre beginning to that season. His tear starting in November through December was ridiculous, but for the beginning of that season it was the Brent Johnson show. People on the Penguins board were panicking at the lack of scoring. In October he had 15 points in 12 games. In the remaining 29 he had 51, a 1.79 PPG. After one scoreless game against the Islanders (a tight-checking game), he gets concussed in the first period of the Winter Classic, and scores 1 point in the next two games.

I think his dominance over the league (which, by the way, he picked up on as soon as he came back) would have continued over much of the rest of the season. I say he ends up with around 120 points on the season with around 55 goals.

Obviously these are hypotheticals. My point is that if this thread intends to diminish Crosby's half season, it fails to take a lot into account (including different scoring levels, his lead over his competition, and his mediocre start.

Believe or not, Stamkos wasn't too far behind him in scoring, both goals and points at that point before Crosby got injured.

Injuries are a part of the game and being healthy is just as important as scoring. Scoring a lot in small bunches (41 games, 20 games) is great and all but Crosby has yet to put it together for an entire season since he won the Art Ross.

Just a comparison, Jagr had 71 Pts in his first 39 games in 1999-00 before getting injured, he did come back after missing 19 games and still put up 96 Pts to capture the Art Ross but the Hart and Rocket both went out the window.

What's to say that if Crosby had come back that same season from the concussion that he doesn't slow down significantly or that he doesn't get the concussion and continues that season and still slows down significantly. The season of 82 games is long, it is very hard to continue the same pace all season long. In fact in Ovechkin'ks last great season, he had a better 50 games start than Crosby had a 41 game start and then he not only got suspended but also missed a few games with an injury, sure he still finished 2nd in league scoring with 109 Pts but he missed out on every single major individual award that season.

Anything can happen throughout a season.

What the purpose of the OP was here was to display that first of all streaks and half seasons are all a part of the game and that sometimes finishing the season with the similar pace is trickier than starting on "fire".

Crosby's half season pace in 2011 doesn't even rank among the top 5 despite what some media outlets tried to sell people (comparing him to Gretzky and Lemieux).

From a purely offensive perspective, it's not out of the realm of being debatable, especially since Crosby was better at same age and hasn't hit his peak (or confirmed his peak with a full season). When you factor in the other aspects that Crosby brings, it goes in his favour. I think Crosby does not get enough recognition for adapting his game to whatever is needed to win while maintaining the highest PPG in the game. Just imagine if he played without being held responsible for anything else except offense. Coming out of the CHL, he was the best offensive prospect since Mario.

From a purely offensive perspective, it's not out of the realm of being debatable, especially since Crosby was better at same age and hasn't hit his peak (or confirmed his peak with a full season). When you factor in the other aspects that Crosby brings, it goes in his favour. I think Crosby does not get enough recognition for adapting his game to whatever is needed to win while maintaining the highest PPG in the game. Just imagine if he played without being held responsible for anything else except offense. Coming out of the CHL, he was the best offensive prospect since Mario.

The first part I bolded is debatable.

Head to head in ages;

At 18 the win goes to Crosby decisively.

At 19 the win goes to Crosby decisively as well although Jagr missed the last 12 games and had he played those 12 games would have most likely finished with a PPG season. Jagr also had the most impressive "sophomore" playoff run in NHL history at the age of 20.

At age 20 it's pretty close.

At age 21 the slight edge goes to Jagr.

At age 22 Jagr wins this decisively.

At age 23 Jagr wins this decisively again.

At age 24 it's pretty even.

At age 25 Jagr wins this.

So how has Crosby been better than Jagr at the same age? The first 4 seasons do go to Crosby but after that Jagr more than makes up for his late start.

In regards to the second bolded part, Eric Lindros says hello.

Every great player has had to adapt his game to maintain an edge, Crosby is not the first star to do this nor is he the last.

Crosby's PPG has been high the last 2 seasons because he has played a total of 63 games.

When he's healthy and plays a full season, let's see if he can maintain such a high PPG.

It's not what Jagr did in his first 7 seasons but what he did from season 4 and onward that set him apart from the rest of the NHL. Jagr's prime is 1994-95 to 2000-01.

In those 7 seasons Jagr had 315 goals, 446 assists for a total of 761 pts in just 495 games (before you jump at "Jagr played in a higher scoring era", I would suggest you do research and look at the numbers as Jagr's prime fell most during the "Dead Puck Era" and even with the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, the scoring in those 2 seasons were pretty close to 2005-06 and 2006-07) those 761 Pts in 495 games gave him a PPG of 1.54. He averaged over 120 Pts a season in 82 games during his prime.

At 19 the win goes to Crosby decisively as well although Jagr missed the last 12 games and had he played those 12 games would have most likely finished with a PPG season. Jagr also had the most impressive "sophomore" playoff run in NHL history at the age of 20.

At age 20 it's pretty close.

At age 21 the slight edge goes to Jagr.

At age 22 Jagr wins this decisively.

At age 23 Jagr wins this decisively again.

At age 24 it's pretty even.

At age 25 Jagr wins this.

So how has Crosby been better than Jagr at the same age? The first 4 seasons do go to Crosby but after that Jagr more than makes up for his late start.

In regards to the second bolded part, Eric Lindros says hello.

Every great player has had to adapt his game to maintain an edge, Crosby is not the first star to do this nor is he the last.

Crosby's PPG has been high the last 2 seasons because he has played a total of 63 games.

When he's healthy and plays a full season, let's see if he can maintain such a high PPG.

It's not what Jagr did in his first 7 seasons but what he did from season 4 and onward that set him apart from the rest of the NHL. Jagr's prime is 1994-95 to 2000-01.

In those 7 seasons Jagr had 315 goals, 446 assists for a total of 761 pts in just 495 games (before you jump at "Jagr played in a higher scoring era", I would suggest you do research and look at the numbers as Jagr's prime fell most during the "Dead Puck Era" and even with the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, the scoring in those 2 seasons were pretty close to 2005-06 and 2006-07) those 761 Pts in 495 games gave him a PPG of 1.54. He averaged over 120 Pts a season in 82 games during his prime.

So far Crosby has yet to reach a prime and or peak Jagr.

Crosby was clearly superior in his first four seasons. Age 22 is a draw. Age 23, Crosby was on pace to set himself apart from the league which should not have been a surprise to anyone. Again, throw in the other aspects of his game and he close to if not better than Jagr.

Crosby was clearly superior in his first four seasons. Age 22 is a draw. Age 23, Crosby was on pace to set himself apart from the league which should not have been a surprise to anyone. Again, throw in the other aspects of his game and he close to if not better than Jagr.

Age 22 is not a draw, Jagr won his first Art Ross and finished 2nd in Hart voting.

Age 23 saw Crosby play 41 games and score 66 Pts while Jagr scored 149 in 82 games at 23-24.

What other aspects of the game? Is Crosby a better hitter? No way. Is he better at absorbing hits and keeping possession of the puck? Maybe only Lemieux was better at this than Jagr was.

Was he a better faceoff guy? Sure but Jagr plays wing. Was Crosby a better two-way player? Of course he was since Jagr is a wing and his job is to score goals. Jagr's offense more than made up for his lack of defense.

Crosby "was" (key word was and not "did") on pace to distance himself from the rest of the league, the thing is he never did. Had he remained healthy, what's to say that he doesn't slump a bit and slow down with his scoring pace? What's to say that someone like Stamkos doesn't catch up to him in scoring?

No matter how you try to bring this "other elements of the game" argument to the table, at the end of the day, Crosby has yet to reach Jagr's level of dominance.

Other than the fact that Jagr dominated the game offensively, he also was able to remain relatively healthy most of his career which is almost as important. Jagr had better +/- numbers, had much better 5-on-5 numbers and played during an era where players were hooking, grabbing, slashing and tripping him to try and impede is progress on the ice and most occasions Jagr left them in the dust.

Forsberg at his best was a better two-way player than Crosby has ever been and Forsberg put up some pretty good PPG seasons but even he never reached Jagr's level.

Age 22 is not a draw, Jagr won his first Art Ross and finished 2nd in Hart voting.

Age 23 saw Crosby play 41 games and score 66 Pts while Jagr scored 149 in 82 games at 23-24.

What other aspects of the game? Is Crosby a better hitter? No way. Is he better at absorbing hits and keeping possession of the puck? Maybe only Lemieux was better at this than Jagr was.

Was he a better faceoff guy? Sure but Jagr plays wing. Was Crosby a better two-way player? Of course he was since Jagr is a wing and his job is to score goals. Jagr's offense more than made up for his lack of defense.

Crosby "was" (key word was and not "did") on pace to distance himself from the rest of the league, the thing is he never did. Had he remained healthy, what's to say that he doesn't slump a bit and slow down with his scoring pace? What's to say that someone like Stamkos doesn't catch up to him in scoring?

No matter how you try to bring this "other elements of the game" argument to the table, at the end of the day, Crosby has yet to reach Jagr's level of dominance.

Other than the fact that Jagr dominated the game offensively, he also was able to remain relatively healthy most of his career which is almost as important. Jagr had better +/- numbers, had much better 5-on-5 numbers and played during an era where players were hooking, grabbing, slashing and tripping him to try and impede is progress on the ice and most occasions Jagr left them in the dust.

Forsberg at his best was a better two-way player than Crosby has ever been and Forsberg put up some pretty good PPG seasons but even he never reached Jagr's level.

It still remains to be seen if Crosby can ever get to Jagr's level.

Age 22, Crosby wins the Rocket, barely loses the Art Ross and is third in Hart voting. Not much difference.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the PPG pace Crosby has put up over the last two seasons is reality. He scored 120 as a 19 year old. He was due to step up those numbers as he got older. I think he would have had higher numbers if he only focused on offense like Jagr. Throw in his superior playoff numbers and yes, Crosby has reached Jagr's level.

Doing this while establishing a solid, if not very good, defensive game, is the difference. If he is able to put up a few seasons with legacy type numbers, I think his competitiveness and his ability to become elite in whatever facet of the game that is needed to win will place him among the very best.

Age 22, Crosby wins the Rocket, barely loses the Art Ross and is third in Hart voting. Not much difference.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the PPG pace Crosby has put up over the last two seasons is reality. He scored 120 as a 19 year old. He was due to step up those numbers as he got older. I think he would have had higher numbers if he only focused on offense like Jagr. Throw in his superior playoff numbers and yes, Crosby has reached Jagr's level.

Doing this while establishing a solid, if not very good, defensive game, is the difference. If he is able to put up a few seasons with legacy type numbers, I think his competitiveness and his ability to become elite in whatever facet of the game that is needed to win will place him among the very best.

I really don't think you understand what playing more games does to your PPG, you really don't.

I will give you one of Jagr's seasons as a prime example of PPG dropping when you play more games. In 1999-00, Jagr got off to a blistering start, he had 32 goals and 39 assists in just 39 games for a total of 71 Pts, that's a PPG of 1.82 which is higher than Crosby's 1.61 in 41 games in 2010-11. Over 82 games, that means Jagr would have had 150 Pts while Crosby would have had 132 Pts. Do you know what happened to Jagr that season in 1999-00? He got injured and missed 19 games, when he came back he only managed to score 25 Pts in his last 24 games. He missed a total of 19 games that season and despite that put up 96 Pts in 63 games for a PPG of 1.52 which is very good but a massive drop from the 1.82 PPG he had in the first half. As the course of any season progresses, it becomes harder to score as teams are battling for playoff positioning and start to tighten up their defense. If Crosby plays the remaining 41 games, what's to say his PPG doesn't drop to below 1.50 (closer to 1.35 PPG) which was his career average at the time?

In regards to Jagr only focusing on offense, when you score at the pace he did, there isn't really a need to play defense. His vastly superior puck possession game was his defense. His +/- numbers in his career are proof of this, despite playing on usually mediocre to average defensive teams most of his career. This "defensive" game argument is something that people use to defend a certain player when they know that this certain player loses out to the other player on offense and sometimes in decisive fashion. It is the end result that really matters and not the way you do it (the way you do it is subjective), the end result had Jagr being vastly superior over his peers. When Crosby won his only Art Ross trophy, he won the award by a total of 6 Pts. He has never distanced himself from the rest of the NHL, ever. In two of Jagr's Art Ross seasons he won the award by 11 and 20 pts respectively. In another one he won his by 2 Pts despite playing 9 games less than his nearest competitor.

Crosby has only had one truly dominant season and that was in 2006-07 when he was a sophomore and where he scored more than 50% of his points on the powerplay. Jagr has had 5 truly dominant seasons in his career in 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2005-06 and in all those seasons he finished in the top 3 in evenstrength scoring sometimes leading the entire league by wide margins. Crosby has yet to sniff at this level of dominance. BTW that season where Crosby won the Rocket, he tied for it with a sophomore player and probably doesn't even look at the award if Ovechkin doesn't miss 10 games.

Jagr's 1999-00 season was so dominant before his injury that made him miss 19 games, that with those 71 Pts in his first 39 games, he would have still finished in the top 25 in scoring.

Crosby's 66 Pts in 41 games in 2010-11 doesn't even put him in the top 30 in scoring.

By the age of 29, Jagr already had 4 Art Ross trophies and by the time he turned 30 he had 5 of them and he loses out on 2 (1995-96 to Lemieux and 1996-97 to Lemieux and also due to only playing 19 games).

Crosby better get healthy fast and better start winning those Art Ross trophies before he hits 30 or otherwise, the first 10 seasons of each player's career will go to Jagr in a landslide decision.

I really don't think you understand what playing more games does to your PPG, you really don't.

Crosby is traditionally a slow starter. Maybe he scores at a higher PPG the more games he played. It's conjecture but given that Crosby was superior to Jagr in his first four years, why wouldn't he show the same increase in production that Jagr and most players show as they reach their prime.

Crosby is traditionally a slow starter. Maybe he scores at a higher PPG the more games he played. It's conjecture but given that Crosby was superior to Jagr in his first four years, why wouldn't he show the same increase in production that Jagr and most players show as they reach their prime.

Many players including Lindros, Bure, Ovechkin, even Malkin were better than Jagr in their first 4 seasons, none of them though reached or have yet to reach Jagr's level in his prime.

It's all nice and dandy to have a great first 4 seasons in the NHL (I notice some backtracking by you, first it was 7 seasons and then you realized that the 5th, 6th and 7th seasons Jagr took his game to another level so now you're using 4 seasons), but if you don't continue to play great or you don't take your game to another level then it's pretty much pointless. Jagr was a special player and that's why he took his game to another level; not everyone wins 5 Art Ross trophies (only Esposito has 5 and Howe and Lemieux have 6 while Gretzky had 9), so if you're expecting Crosby to win 5 or more Art Ross trophies then you have very lofty expectations for him, I hope you're right just for your own sake.

BTW did you ever consider the reason why Jagr had a slow start to his career was because first he played in an European league during a time when Communism still existed in Czechoslovakia, Jagr came to a country where he was home sick, didn't speak any English and played on a team full All-Stars and so icetime was limited for him? In fact in Jagr's first 2 seasons he was playing on the 3rd and 4th lines playing about 8-12 minutes a game and barely seeing any 2nd PP unit time.

Let's wait and see what Crosby does from now on. Does he shake off the concussion issues and take his game to another level? Or does he go down the Lindros, Karyia path?

Many players including Lindros, Bure, Ovechkin, even Malkin were better than Jagr in their first 4 seasons, none of them though reached or have yet to reach Jagr's level in his prime.

It's all nice and dandy to have a great first 4 seasons in the NHL (I notice some backtracking by you, first it was 7 seasons and then you realized that the 5th, 6th and 7th seasons Jagr took his game to another level so now you're using 4 seasons), but if you don't continue to play great or you don't take your game to another level then it's pretty much pointless. Jagr was a special player and that's why he took his game to another level; not everyone wins 5 Art Ross trophies (only Esposito has 5 and Howe and Lemieux have 6 while Gretzky had 9), so if you're expecting Crosby to win 5 or more Art Ross trophies then you have very lofty expectations for him, I hope you're right just for your own sake.

BTW did you ever consider the reason why Jagr had a slow start to his career was because first he played in an European league during a time when Communism still existed in Czechoslovakia, Jagr came to a country where he was home sick, didn't speak any English and played on a team full All-Stars and so icetime was limited for him? In fact in Jagr's first 2 seasons he was playing on the 3rd and 4th lines playing about 8-12 minutes a game and barely seeing any 2nd PP unit time.

Let's wait and see what Crosby does from now on. Does he shake off the concussion issues and take his game to another level? Or does he go down the Lindros, Karyia path?

We will just have to wait and see.

Didn't backtrack. Year five is a draw, and after that it's opinion. Art Rosses will be one of the measurements to be considered in comparing the two.

He's saying that his first 41 GP projected to 90 G & 128 A per 82 games.

Oh, i get it now.

Adjusted stats close the gap between Jagr/Lemieux and others.

What i found noteworthy is that in top-10 adjusted streaks after 1994 there is only one Selanne and one Forsberg. Others spots are Lemieux and Jagr. Both having four spots.

Not sure how good measurement adjusted stats are between 1990's years and 2005 onwards. I feel like the stars today get a little too rough treatment and stars in the 90's get a bit too much slack due to difficult scoring.

What i found noteworthy is that in top-10 adjusted streaks after 1994 there is only one Selanne and one Forsberg. Others spots are Lemieux and Jagr. Both having four spots.

Not sure how good measurement adjusted stats are between 1990's years and 2005 onwards. I feel like the stars today get a little too rough treatment and stars in the 90's get a bit too much slack due to difficult scoring.

The adjusted numbers do slightly hurt post-lockout seasons vs. DPE seasons (mid-90s to last lockout). The average difference is ~3%. If you are looking at a single season from each period, the difference could be larger, but if you're looking at multiple seasons from each period, it's really not much of a factor.

Lemieux and Jagr don't dominate these and other lists due to some flaw in adjusted points, but because they were clearly much better. Let's look at the other players who were on the adjusted list at least 3 times:

Lindros' top 3 are about even with Crosby & Ovechkin, and Crosby should still have some very good years ahead if he can stay healthy. That shouldn't be shocking, because as hyped as Crosby was, we know that Lindros was even more so. Like Crosby, he mostly lived up to the hype, but both often struggled to avoid injuries. Crosby's and Ovechkin's top 3 hold up against anyone else, and Malkin's top 3 fares well against anyone but Lindros. Malkin is still in his peak years as well and probably the most certain to have at least another great season or two. So I don't see it as adjusted stats favoring the 90s generation over the post-lockout generation.

The adjusted numbers do slightly hurt post-lockout seasons vs. DPE seasons (mid-90s to last lockout). The average difference is ~3%. If you are looking at a single season from each period, the difference could be larger, but if you're looking at multiple seasons from each period, it's really not much of a factor.

Lemieux and Jagr don't dominate these and other lists due to some flaw in adjusted points, but because they were clearly much better. Let's look at the other players who were on the adjusted list at least 3 times:
........
........
........

Lindros' top 3 are about even with Crosby & Ovechkin, and Crosby should still have some very good years ahead if he can stay healthy. That shouldn't be shocking, because as hyped as Crosby was, we know that Lindros was even more so. Like Crosby, he mostly lived up to the hype, but both often struggled to avoid injuries. Crosby's and Ovechkin's top 3 hold up against anyone else, and Malkin's top 3 fares well against anyone but Lindros. Malkin is still in his peak years as well and probably the most certain to have at least another great season or two. So I don't see it as adjusted stats favoring the 90s generation over the post-lockout generation.

Yeah, I guess taking account on multiple seasons the comparison gets a bit more even. Still I don't like too much the adjusted stats when comparing ONLY late 90's to late 00's. I guess I feel like the 90's were so little time a go that we should remember the dominance from players and would not need too much stats on deciding who was better than who.

I agree that adjusted stats are necessary if we go more than 20-years behind. I think that adjustment is good way to indicate two different players, but I have hard time believing that Selanne was offensively as good as Ovechkin/Malkin or Crosby. But adjusted stats actually claim that he peaked on the same level.

Jagr and Lemieux are pretty obvious leaders. I just pointed out that there is basically zero list based on offense where Jagr and Lemieux DON'T dominate the modern stars.

Yeah, I guess taking account on multiple seasons the comparison gets a bit more even. Still I don't like too much the adjusted stats when comparing ONLY late 90's to late 00's. I guess I feel like the 90's were so little time a go that we should remember the dominance from players and would not need too much stats on deciding who was better than who.

I agree that adjusted stats are necessary if we go more than 20-years behind. I think that adjustment is good way to indicate two different players, but I have hard time believing that Selanne was offensively as good as Ovechkin/Malkin or Crosby. But adjusted stats actually claim that he peaked on the same level.

Jagr and Lemieux are pretty obvious leaders. I just pointed out that there is basically zero list based on offense where Jagr and Lemieux DON'T dominate the modern stars.

I partially agree with you, but then each method has its flaws. Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby at their peaks do seem slightly better than Selanne was, but I wonder how much of that was due to Selanne playing on bad teams in an era where defenders had much more leeway to hold, hook, slash, etc. He peaked similarly to players like Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros, in terms of offensive production, and many would argue that at least some of those players peaked at a similar level to the current top players. Ovechkin had a great 3 year stretch from '08-'10, but Selanne actually outscored him in '07 & '12, and was 5 points behind him in '11, despite being way past his peak. He also scored 76 goals as a rookie, albeit a 22 y/or rookie in a higher scoring season. It's difficult for me to believe that he peaked much lower than the current stars, when he lost a Ross to each of Lemieux & Jagr. If you asked me who was better for 3 seasons, I would probably take Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby and Thornton over Sakic, Selanne, Forsberg and Lindros. If it was for 5+ seasons, I would probably take the latter group, that's how close it is IMO. Also, while Crosby and Malkin have had their share of injuries already, I think injuries were an even bigger obstacle in DPE.

Aside from Wayne and Mario (obviously) Jagr was THE most dominant player, on his own level, for a large period of time, and noone - came close to him.

And for all his defensive shortcomings, people who didn't see him in his prime, simply don't understand this guy was skilled, strong AND fast, and his puck possession game might just be the best in the history.
He piled up a huge +/- because his teams scored more than the opposition, and his way of playing defense was to take that puck and spend a huge chuck of time in the offensive zone.

Crosby, man... Crosby doesn't even come close to that level of dominance.
Not Crosby, not Ovechkin, not Malkin.

I partially agree with you, but then each method has its flaws. Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby at their peaks do seem slightly better than Selanne was, but I wonder how much of that was due to Selanne playing on bad teams in an era where defenders had much more leeway to hold, hook, slash, etc. He peaked similarly to players like Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros, in terms of offensive production, and many would argue that at least some of those players peaked at a similar level to the current top players. Ovechkin had a great 3 year stretch from '08-'10, but Selanne actually outscored him in '07 & '12, and was 5 points behind him in '11, despite being way past his peak. He also scored 76 goals as a rookie, albeit a 22 y/or rookie in a higher scoring season. It's difficult for me to believe that he peaked much lower than the current stars, when he lost a Ross to each of Lemieux & Jagr. If you asked me who was better for 3 seasons, I would probably take Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby and Thornton over Sakic, Selanne, Forsberg and Lindros. If it was for 5+ seasons, I would probably take the latter group, that's how close it is IMO. Also, while Crosby and Malkin have had their share of injuries already, I think injuries were an even bigger obstacle in DPE.

I spent few hours on searching about 90's stars and I have to agree. Selanne actually peaked offensively right around Malkin/Crosby/OV level. Better than I realized at first.

I think those two groups you said are basically even for me. Both define the best players (removing Jagr) from the late 90's and the next generation after that.

The perspective of 90's gets easily twisted a bit since Jagr and Lemieux were the dominating forces back then. Scoring finishes are often twisted at the top. (Like Selanne losing an Art to Lemieux & Jagr) I there is no player in either group who could have snatched an Art Ross from Lemieux or Jagr. So that essentially puts Selanne in to the same category as Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin. (Considering nobody thinks these guys as the same level as Jagr, which would turn the table a bit)

Aside from Wayne and Mario (obviously) Jagr was THE most dominant player, on his own level, for a large period of time, and noone - came close to him.

And for all his defensive shortcomings, people who didn't see him in his prime, simply don't understand this guy was skilled, strong AND fast, and his puck possession game might just be the best in the history.
He piled up a huge +/- because his teams scored more than the opposition, and his way of playing defense was to take that puck and spend a huge chuck of time in the offensive zone.

Crosby, man... Crosby doesn't even come close to that level of dominance.
Not Crosby, not Ovechkin, not Malkin.

Aside from Wayne and Mario (obviously) Jagr was THE most dominant player, on his own level, for a large period of time, and noone - came close to him.

And for all his defensive shortcomings, people who didn't see him in his prime, simply don't understand this guy was skilled, strong AND fast, and his puck possession game might just be the best in the history.
He piled up a huge +/- because his teams scored more than the opposition, and his way of playing defense was to take that puck and spend a huge chuck of time in the offensive zone.

Crosby, man... Crosby doesn't even come close to that level of dominance.
Not Crosby, not Ovechkin, not Malkin.

Well said. I think there's a lot of confusion by those putting Crosby close to Jagr's level at this point:

A) Crosby being better at age 18, 19 or 20 basically has nothing to do with who's better in their peak/prime years. It did give him a big head start in career value, but that's been dissipated by his injuries and Jagr's vast improvement in his early 20s.

B) Crosby is not close to being on the same level offensively as Jagr was. It's not a small difference of < 5% or something. Crosby would have to increase the average of his top 3 and top 5 seasons by 22% & 28%, respectively, to match Jagr's. He would need to hit a much higher full-season level, stay healthy, and maintain/improve that level for multiple full seasons to have a chance to be near Jagr's level. Being close to Jagr's level for 20 games or 40 games is pretty insignificant, as most are looking at value over multiple seasons (i.e. hundreds of games).

C) Being able to do more things well does not necessarily mean being more effective overall. Crosby is not a shutdown forward, he's a scoring forward, same as Jagr. The value they have is in the offense they bring and the net advantage they create compared to them not being there. When they are not playing they have no value. Whether the net advantage is created by pure offense, keeping possession in the offensive zone and opening up the ice for teammates, or helping out on the defensive side is not so important.

When you look at their data, Jagr created a lot more offense, created a lot more net value by his presence (ES data such as adjusted plus-minus, record of team with/without him, etc.), and has been a consistently durable, valuable player in his 25th season of pro hockey. Crosby has a long, long way to go before there's any reason to compare the two.

I spent few hours on searching about 90's stars and I have to agree. Selanne actually peaked offensively right around Malkin/Crosby/OV level. Better than I realized at first.

I think those two groups you said are basically even for me. Both define the best players (removing Jagr) from the late 90's and the next generation after that.

The perspective of 90's gets easily twisted a bit since Jagr and Lemieux were the dominating forces back then. Scoring finishes are often twisted at the top. (Like Selanne losing an Art to Lemieux & Jagr) I there is no player in either group who could have snatched an Art Ross from Lemieux or Jagr. So that essentially puts Selanne in to the same category as Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin. (Considering nobody thinks these guys as the same level as Jagr, which would turn the table a bit)

It's impossible to have an exactly level field to compare between seasons, but when people compare the pre-(WHA merger) NHL to the past ~30+ seasons, there's quite a difference. Think of an NHL with no Gretzky/Lemieux/Jagr level of top player, and no players from the US or overseas (this is essentially how it was most years before WHA merger). Which players could have won a Ross... or even two?

Dionne- wins it outright in '80, and '81 as well (second in '85)
Bossy- wins in '82... and wins in '86 as Coffey drops down (second in '81, '83 & '84... may have won in '84 as Goulet doesn't have Stastny)
Stastny- wins in '83 (second in '84 & '86, as Coffey drops down)
Savard- wins in '83 & '88 (second in '86)
Goulet- wins in '84... but does he w/o Stastny?
Hawerchuk- wins in '85 (second in '88)
Kurri- drops of 10, 10 and 2 points w/o Gretzky from '85-'87 each drop him from the actual/hypothetical top two
Messier- wins in '87 w/o Gretzky?... wins in '90... second in '92
Gilmour- if Messier doesn't win in '87, then he does (second in '94)
Yzerman- wins in '89 (second in '90 & '93)
Hull- wins in '91 & '92
Recchi- wins in '00
Lafontaine- wins in '93
Oates- wins in '93 & '94, second in '91
Fedorov- wins in '94
Jagr- actually wins in '95, '98, '99, '00 & '01 and wins in '96... '97 is first or second, depends on how he does w/o Lemieux and how Kariya does w/o Selanne (second in '02 & '06... not sure what to do about lost '05 season)
Lindros- wins in '95 (second in '96 as Francis drops down)
Sakic- wins in '96 & '01 (second in '95, '99, '04 & '02 as Bertuzzi drops down)
Selanne- wins in '97 & '99 (second in '98)
Kariya- wins in '97 & '99 and second in '00, all w/o Selanne?
LeClair- if Kariya doesn't win in '97 w/o Selanne, then he does... wins in '98
Forsberg- wins in '98 and actually won in '03... (second in '96 & '99... if Kariya doesn't win in '99 w/o Selanne, then he does)
Bure- wins in '98 & '00
Palffy- wins in '98
Iginla- actually won in '02 & wins in '08
Naslund- wins in '03 (actually second in '02)
Thornton- wins in '03 and actually won in '06 (actually second in '07, second in '08)
St. Louis- actually won in '04 & wins in '11
Crosby- actually won in '07, wins in '09 & '10
Ovechkin- actually won in '08, wins in '09 & '10 (second in '06)
Malkin- wins in '08 and actually won in '09 & '12
H.Sedin- actually won in '10
D.Sedin- actually won in '11
Stamkos- wins in '12 (2nd in '10)

1st-2nd place finishes in hypothetical multi-verse (includes Lafleur, who would also have finished second in '80):

- Gretzky just continues to extend his dominance, winning 13 in a row from '80-'92 and 14/15, with a total of 15 or 16. Simply amazing.

- Lemieux wins 4 in a row, 6/8 and 8/12.

- Jagr at the very least would have been first or second in 8 consecutive seasons and potentially winning 7 in a row if he won in '97 (if not, was due to missing 19 games). Injury cost him a battle to the wire in '02 (missed 13 games), he lost the '05 lockout season (when he and Thornton should have been the two favorites) and he had a two point loss in '06 when Thornton had two extra games available due to trade. So one could argue for him deserving 7, 8 or even 9 Rosses, or just having 5 or 6 (with all 4 runner-ups being to potential multiple winners: Kariya, Sakic, Iginla and Thornton... only 5 if take away '01 Ross due to Lemieux's presence for half season, and seems rather unfair to deduct a Ross in this type of scenario, as he was never second fiddle that year).

- The post-lockout triumvirate of Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin is impressive, as they are the only other players besides the "big 3" who would have definitely won 3 times each. Crosby's major injuries have prevented him from separating from the pack.

- Sakic's 6 top two finishes are only surpassed by the big 3. He also has a decent argument for potentially a 3rd or even 4th. In '95, he was 8 points behind Lindros after 48 games, but as we know Lindros had trouble staying healthy for a full season, so who knows how that ends up. In '99, he was 5 points behind Kariya, who actually played on the same line as Selanne (unlike Sakic & Forsberg).

- Three other players, Bossy, Messier and Forsberg, had potential to win 3 times.

- There's always overlap between eras, but particularly difficult are the mid-80s to mid-late 90s. It starts with Gretzky & Lemieux in the league together in the mid-80s, then as they become less consistent factors due to age/injury, the US/overseas talent really becomes strong during the 90s. With Jagr being a force from '95-'02, Lemieux still on top '93, '96 & '97, and Gretzky still good in '94, '97 & '98, on top of the otherwise normal competition, the 90s were no picnic.

Well said. I think there's a lot of confusion by those putting Crosby close to Jagr's level at this point:

A) Crosby being better at age 18, 19 or 20 basically has nothing to do with who's better in their peak/prime years. It did give him a big head start in career value, but that's been dissipated by his injuries and Jagr's vast improvement in his early 20s.

B) Crosby is not close to being on the same level offensively as Jagr was. It's not a small difference of < 5% or something. Crosby would have to increase the average of his top 3 and top 5 seasons by 22% & 28%, respectively, to match Jagr's. He would need to hit a much higher full-season level, stay healthy, and maintain/improve that level for multiple full seasons to have a chance to be near Jagr's level. Being close to Jagr's level for 20 games or 40 games is pretty insignificant, as most are looking at value over multiple seasons (i.e. hundreds of games).

C) Being able to do more things well does not necessarily mean being more effective overall. Crosby is not a shutdown forward, he's a scoring forward, same as Jagr. The value they have is in the offense they bring and the net advantage they create compared to them not being there. When they are not playing they have no value. Whether the net advantage is created by pure offense, keeping possession in the offensive zone and opening up the ice for teammates, or helping out on the defensive side is not so important.

When you look at their data, Jagr created a lot more offense, created a lot more net value by his presence (ES data such as adjusted plus-minus, record of team with/without him, etc.), and has been a consistently durable, valuable player in his 25th season of pro hockey. Crosby has a long, long way to go before there's any reason to compare the two.

Too bad so many people buy into this myth of Crosby having reached Jagr's level of dominance. Not in our Reality though.